Guwahati Court September 2003 Judgments

Kutub UddIn Kazi and ors. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application, the petitioners, who have been working as Muster Roll workers/ Work Charge employees in Baskandi Development Block under North Cachar, district on being engaged after cut off, date 1.4.1993, fixed by the Government for engaging persons in the capacity as aforementioned, have approached this Court, with the help of the present writ petition, seeking regularization of their services and commanding the respondents not to dis-continue their services and pay to them their salaries/wages since the month of April, 1996.2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners runs as follows :The petitioners were appointed as Muster Roll Worker/Work Charge employees in the office of the respondent No. 6, namely, Block Development Officer, Baskandi Development Block, P.O. Bauskandi Dist Cachar, Assam, at a fixed pay of Rs. 900 per month on different dates after the cut off date of 1.4.1993 fixed by the Government for engaging persons as Muster Roll Workers/Wo...

Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Ratan Kr. Bhattacharjee and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T. Vaiphei,J.1. Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.2. The short question of law to be determined in this case is whether this appeal lies in view of Section 97 of C.P.C.3. The facts relevant for determining this appeal may be summarised as follows :--The respondent No. 1 in this case had instituted a partition suit bearing No. T.S. (P) 174 of 1992.before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura against the appellant and other pro-forma respondents for partition of the suit property claiming 3/9 share therein. The appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement of defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed a preliminary decree on 18-5-1994 holding that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get 1/3 shares of the suit property while the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to have 1/9 shares each of the suit property. It was also p...

Bijoyananda Choudhury Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. G.K. Bhattacharyya learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sharma Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Morir, PP, Assam for the opp.party. The Apex Court in Sunderbhal Amabalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 in dealing with the disposal of the property pending the trail under Section 451 Cr. PC, held in para 7 that the power under the said section be exercised expeditiously and judiciously because would serve purpose namely:'1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation ;2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody:3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trail. If necessary in detail, and4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not b...

Kuladhar Kalita Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing, despite the names of the learned counsel being shown in the related cause list, has been pending since 1995. Considering the importance of the issue involved in this revision petition, this Court has requested Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.2. In this criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-6-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hallari in CR. No. 552/97 under Section 304(A), I.P.C.3. For better appreciation of the question raised in this revision, it is apt and necessary to refer the impugned order dated 23-6-1995 which may be extracted as under :--'Accused present, judgment is deferred as I find that two materials witnesses are not examined. One is Nandi Barman and another some Deka Store Keeper of that time. Therefore, issue summon to them to appear before the Court as Court witness fixing 27-7-1995.'From th...

Suru Ali and anr. Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.1995 passed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Crl. Appeal No. 36/94 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners against their conviction under Section 324 IPC and subsequent sentence to undergo R.I. for six months each imposed by the learned C.J.M., Jorhat by his order dated 30.8.1994 passed in GR Case No. 1215/ 92, was dismissed confirming the abovementioned conviction and sentence.2. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned P P Assam.3. On meticulous scrutiny of the impugned judgment as well as the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in passing the impugned judgment.4. At this stagem Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place...

income Tax Officer Vs. Radha Krishna Jalan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Gau.)329

1. These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT (A) for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 dated 27/9/2000 and 10/8/2000 respectively. The common effective grounds of appeal in both the appeals are as under: - a) The CIT (A) erred in directing to allow exemption under Section 10(2A) read with Section 80HHC on share income from a partnership firm in which the assessee was not a partner. b) The CIT (A) erred in directing to allow exemption Under Section 10(2A) relying on the decisions which either relate to pre-amendment position or not squarely applicable in the present case.2. Since both the grounds of appeal are correlated and as the facts and circumstance in both the years under appeal are same, they all are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Radha Krishna Jallan is a partner in the firm known as M/S Rock International, Calcutta. In order to meet his capital contribution in the sai...

ito Vs. Radha Krishna Jalan

Court: Guwahati

Narendra S. Sani, Accountant Member. These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 dated 27-9-2000 and 10-8-2000 respectively. The common effective grounds of appeal in both the appeals are as under:(a) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to allow exemption under section 10(2A) read with section 80HHC on share income from a partnership firm in which the assessee was not a partner.(b) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to allow exemption under section 10(2A) relying on the decisions which either relate to preamendment position or not squarely applicable in the present case.2. Since both the grounds of appeal are correlated and as the facts and circumstance in both the years under appeal are same, they all are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Radha Krishna Jallan is a partner in the firm known as M/s. Rock ...

Ato (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

P.P. Naolekar, C.J.1. The petitioner M/s . A.T.O (I) Private Limited, was awarded the job of transportation of PSF for various destinations in the country by letter of intent dated 31.3.1990 issued by the Additional Marketing Manager of M/s Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter shortly called 'BRPL'). The petitioner has informed the BRPL authority that due to untoward incidents like killing, kidnapping, looting and threatening to the businessmen in the region, the transport industry is completely disturbed and as such they have taken timely and judicious steps for withdrawal of their fleets from the route of Assam region. Further, the truck owners felt insecured due to lack of security to their life, valuable trucks as well as property loaded therein. As such, under these circumstances, the petitioner informed the BRPL authority that due to non-availability of truck, drivers, employees and security of life, they are incapable to continue the contract undertaken b...

Hridayanada Sharma Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. There being a conflict of opinion between two learned Single Judges of this Court on the question as to whether an offence, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, is bailable or non-bailable offence, the aforesaid question which has also arisen in the present case, has been referred to a Larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us.2. Section 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that an offence under Section 52A of the said Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years as well as fine also. Under Part-II contained in Schedule-I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an offence under any special law, punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only, is bailable. The learned Single Judge hearing the present bail application took the view that as for an offence under Section 68A of the Copyright Act, the punishment may be 3 years, it has to be understood that the said offence is non-bailable. Th...

Mrs. Rumena Rahman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B. Lamare, J.1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is the managing director of Rahman Properties Limited having its registered office at S. S. Road, Lakhtokia, Guwahati. The said company runs a hotel under the name and style of Hotel Dynasty. On November 3, 1997, a group of about 8 to 10 income-tax officials led by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation) (respondent No. 3), entered into the office of the Hotel Dynasty and inquired about the petitioner. The said persons identified themselves as income-tax officials and stated that they had come to survey the premises under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short as 'the Act'). The officers thereafter entered into the office of Hotel Dynasty, Mohijuli Tea Company Pvt. Limited situated in the same premises and collected records of documents, vouchers books of account from the premises. The above survey continued up to 11.30 p...